“With global IP traffic projected to increase threefold over the next five years – after having increased eightfold over the past five years – policy control and services creation at large scale has never been more vital for mobile and fixed communications service providers,” says Cisco’s Hilton Romanski in a blog post.

If the acquisition goes through, BroadHop’s solutions for mobile and fixed networks will be integrated into Cisco’s Service Provider Mobility Group.

“How does this benefit customers and end-users directly?” says Romanski. “A service provider can integrate BroadHop technology to enable end-users to purchase customized premium service packages. For example, if a consumer desires premium on-demand streaming, BroadHop technology allows the service provider to add value to and monetize this particular service. In return, the user is granted a high level of service and premium bandwidth to ensure the best possible experience.”

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Cisco did close a couple of its other recently announced acquisitions over the past week or so. On 12/10, Cisco completed its acquisition of Cloupia, and on 12/17, the company completed its acquisition of Cariden.

How has the social media revolution changed your life? Share your story with us.

According to Jeff Pulver, who is known for his work with VoIP and as the co-founder of Vonage, everything he ever needed to know about social media, he discovered at age 15. At that point, he understood that social media was all about listening, connecting, sharing, and engaging.

Pulver told us that all his work with VoIP was motivated by his goal of connecting people both on the telephone and on the computer. He believes that social media is not about single platform. Instead, he believes it creates more places to have conversations.

Three of his favorite words are “fear, greed, and disruption.” He said these words have “affected the way we all communicate in business.” While these words appear to be negative, Pulver pointed out that there such a thing as “positive disruption,” which triggers change. Social media is one example of this “positive disruption” and the changes it has brought about are extensive.

He associates social sites such as Facebook and Twitter with the “Purple Minutes” classification that he popularized back in the early 2000′s. The term was used to describe the value-added IP traffic to separate it from the black and white phone minutes.

“It’s all these years later we’re starting to start to see how people are using IP-based networks to do things they never could do before,” he said.

It is for these reasons that Pulver believes we are experiencing a social media revolution in which everyone has access to information.

“It’s not a revolution about ‘we the people,’ but about ‘me the people.’ It’s these individual ‘me’s’ that are able to leverage these technologies directly and indirectly to effect positive and forceful change in the world,” he said.

Recent events such as the chaos in the Middle East and the band of natural disasters show how social media is sparking a revolution that is bringing people together throughout the world. As the revolution continues to evolve, those that do not jump on board with it are likely to face challenges.

“The companies that don’t get it may be disrupted out of business… those companies that understand this can actually change the way they do their business,” said Pulver.

The Consumer Help Center allows people to learn about different issues in telecommunications, find out what’s going on at the FCC, get tips for making choices for purchasing communication devices and services, file comments on issues and file complaints to report problems.

"Our new Consumer Help Center makes it easy for consumers to learn about our work and take action," says Joel Gurin, Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC.

"Here, in one place, consumers can do a number of things such as read about consumer issues, get practical advice for avoiding problems, file a complaint, comment on our rulemakings, or read what our FCC experts are saying in our Consumer Blog."

The Consumer Help Center includes:

*Everything consumers need to know about Bill Shock and Early Termination Fees — two common issues that affect wireless customers;

*Savvy Traveler tips — advice on making phone calls when traveling abroad;

*Broadband Speed Test — consumers can test the speed of their broadband service;

*Fact Sheet Library – more than 150 consumer Fact Sheets on telecom subjects;

*Links to additional resources on a range of issues, including privacy

*Links to file a complaint to the FCC or comment on our rulemakings;

*Blog posts about consumer issues — with consumer comments welcome;

*News releases, statements, and FCC actions.

The site will be updated to include new FCC consumer initiatives as they are launched.

Kevin Martin, FCC Chairman
(Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

Maybe it’s wise advice when dealing with other Administration-appointed turds clogging up the works as well. FEMA’s Michael Brown, after doing nobody any favors during the Katrina disaster, finally did us all a solid by resigning. Up next, if we’re lucky, is Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (Mr. The-Economy-Is-Fine), followed by Martin.

Don’t just take my word for it. It’s Wear-All-Black Day at the FCC, the third anniversary of Martin taking over and creating a totalitarian "super-politicized" environment. Maybe he’s not completely to blame; we all know what happens to Administration appointees if they don’t fall in line.

So if Martin’s not at liberty to do the opposite of what he thinks is best, then maybe others will be able to. Martin’s not a fan of Net Neutrality ideas, unless it involves (symbolically) grilling Comcast about it. Verizon and AT&T have yet to take their places in the hot seat, which is pretty par for the course.

But then again, Comcast isn’t projected as winning the bid for all or nearly all of the C-Block spectrum. Comcast also wasn’t doing its "patriotic duty" by bending over for the DOJ like the telecoms. The reward for the telecoms is they don’t get as much flack from the FCC.

Or so the theory goes.

Comcast is suing the FCC, by the way, over an imposed cap on media ownership, which won’t apply to other media companies, for whom Martin wants to relax the ownership rules. Comcast is more than happy to mention how quickly and lovingly Martin’s FCC approved the largest merger in acquisition history regardless of antitrust concerns, the AT&T/BellSouth merger.

Their lawsuit will have to get in line, though, among two-dozen other lawsuits filed against the FCC regarding that same issue. It will be in line also behind a Supreme Court case, scheduled for this fall, regarding Martin’s and the Administration’s hard-line stance against "fleeting expletives" occurring on live television, often beyond the control of the broadcasters. Martin would extend the government-regulation of speech to cable and satellite subscription networks as well.

Martin would have a more difficult time regulating Internet speech, especially in light of his past non-regulation arguments and all those pesky freedom-loving Americans out there. He won’t have to regulate, though, if he gives a free pass to AT&T and Verizon, who seem lately more than happy to regulate speech for him, and who thus far haven’t come under the scrutiny Comcast has suffered.

That’s not a defense of Comcast’s blocking of file-sharing traffic, just to say that what’s good for one should be good for the other.

Perhaps all these abuses will get their proper light with the threatened Congressional investigation into allegations that Martin has abused his power, either in the name of politics, or the name of double-standard stupidity.

And hopefully, that threatened investigation will result in what needs to be done before a new President takes the stage.      
 

Library of Congress

And at least Republicans, who we’ve known to have a veritable cornucopia of cojones – large, brass, clanging ones – are predictably pitching fits and playing that good old reliable and, like their coveted surveillance, unwarranted fear card.

In the face of all that brass, it’s not clear yet, just how long the Democrats’ newfound courage will hold out—nobody likes to be against "protecting" America or viewed as soft on security in the most important election year for the Democratic party since Bubba came around and charmed the pants, literally, off everybody.

These golden power-seizing opportunities only come around once every so often, the last great icon being Bubba, and the last one before that being, well, Kennedy. Disclaimer: I’m neither Democrat nor Republican nor completely Libertarian, though that’s closest. I happen to be more Democrat than Republican this election season though, given the choices and recent histories.

I’m against retroactive immunity for a number of reasons, which I will get into in a bit. But first I want to say that my opinion on the matter, or the opinion of the opposition, should be moot at this juncture. What really matters right now is that the American people get their day in court, not who’s wrong or right on surveillance. The government does not have the right nor the authority to take away the people’s entitlement of bringing companies or the government itself before the courts to decide whether the accused is actually guilty.

The same goes for any other matter. If a man is charged with a crime, the government cannot deny either the man’s right to defend himself, nor the public’s right to investigate, nor the court’s authority to decide whether or not there was any wrongdoing. Retroactive immunity would deny the people their day in court, and that should not be allowed to happen. If it’s true that the telecoms and government were innocent of wrongdoing, let them present that case in court, and let it be decided there.

Otherwise, there is no system of checks and balances, no system of justice or accountability. The administration will be granted unprecedented authority to whatever it wants without having to answer to anybody or tell anybody what it is doing, civil liberties and the Constitution be damned. That’s pretty un-American in my book, borderline treasonous, and right out of the totalitarian playbooks our system of government was set up against.

But Bush, his administration, and many Republicans in Congress would deny any type of accountability, even to the extent that the people are denied what’s fair to them, and there is a looming fear that the Democrats in this sensitive election season, will do a bit of grandstanding before ultimately backing down and giving into the regime.

That could happen next week, once Congress has more time to address it—or now that there’s a good six weeks before the next major primary.

That the people should be given their day in court is my main point, and I’ve made it. I’ll now turn to my argument against immunity so that any reader who won’t be able to stand it anymore can go ahead and click out.

Even if I plan to keep rather brief.

The President doesn’t think the American people deserve to ask questions in court, but instead thinks they should thank the telecom industry for doing their patriotic duty* and just be on their way, you know, putting that $300 back into the economy by engaging in the same fiscal irresponsibility that got us into the economic crisis we’re in already, which somehow warrants a pittance of a refund, in some kind of weird circular logic.

Basically, after seven straight years of eroding public trust (what’s his approval rating again?) by at best being wrong and at worst lying (which one is up to you), the administration is asking for more trust, and asking for us also to trust companies who’ve demonstrated the same or less justification for trust than the government has.

These very institutions we’re being asked to trust have not earned that trust. The FBI just admitted that it improperly accessed Americans’ telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006. This was just on the heels of the administration’s argument that they were only using warrantless wiretapping to intercept foreign communications and not information on Americans.

So: FBI not worthy of our trust.

Who gave them the information? Well, Verizon admitted a while back that it turned over customer (read: American citizen) information to the government voluntarily, without any fight whatsoever. AT&T has a special room set up just for the NSA to intercept traffic. This all happened despite their initial right to refuse such requests, and the government’s obligation to seek proper court orders under the law. And, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wants it so that all Internet traffic going across networks is monitored, which would include American citizens, Fourth Amendment violation or not, even if no FISA request has been turned down in 30 years.

So: Verizon, AT&T, National Intelligence agencies not worthy of our trust.

Some supporters have argued that allowing the Protect America Act to sunset means the intelligence communities cannot currently collect data. That’s patently untrue. They are able to collect data for another six months, so there’s no urgency now.

So: You conclude what that means for the trustworthiness of supporters of immunity for yourself.

And really? The Bush Administration and blind Congressional followers just expect us to give the whole lot of them a free pass to do whatever they want without any type of supervision or system of accountability, legal or not? How un-American is that? Worse, I fear the Democrats won’t muster up enough courage to stand up to it, and that doubtful Republicans won’t risk crossing party lines, especially during an election year, when fear is the most tried-and-true path to power.

*"Patriotic duty" is a nice, loaded phrase that is up for interpretation, and more commonly used to manipulate people by a gambit of emotions like guilt, shame, obligation, and pride. It could easily be argued that "patriotic duty" in America is standing up to abuses of power. If so, the telecommunications companies clearly shirked that duty.  

There were lawsuits, mysteries, legal abuses, policy shifts, embarrassments, scandals, oppressions, miscalculations, bubble discussions, and significant innovations. All and all, 2007 was a big year for anybody with a stake on the Net.

So, without further ado, we present the Most, the Biggest, the Best, and the Worst of 2007.

Biggest Winner: Apple and the Jesus Phone

You know your product’s hit a nerve when people pair it up with the savior of the world. Apple CEO Steve Jobs induced a Web-and-media-wide paroxysm by introducing the iPhone last January, which lasted until the mob turned on him over steep price cuts in advance of the holiday season. Pair that with a wildly successful ad campaign, surging stock prices, and increasing comparisons to Microsoft (gasp!), and you’ve got an all around winner.

Biggest Losers: Apple TV, Kevin Martin, Second Life, and the RIAA

Launch of Apple TV, which promised to link Web content to television sets, was overshadowed by the aforementioned Jesus phone. Not that it mattered much; once bloggers got around to it, they were less than enthused.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin proved himself to be such a telco-industry flunkie in regard to Net Neutrality, cable regulation, 700 MHz auction rules, and spectrum use that his year ends with threats of a Congressional investigation for abuse of power. Well done, Kevin. Or at least you will be when the grilling’s finished. 

Even though Second Life lit up 2006 with the possibilities and issues virtual worlds presented to marketers and lawyers, and even influenced philosophies regarding virtual goods and currencies in 2007, those accumulated Linden dollars may soon be doing as poorly as the real dollar, or worse. Recent reports show Second Life has become a bit of a ghost town.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) bullied, fought, and sued its way to infamous villainy in both 2006 and 2007 by targeting not just file-sharing networks but also file-sharers themselves. But 2007 marked the year the recording industry began to walk away from DRM (digital rights management). EMI, Universal, and Warner Music Group all opened their hearts to DRM-free digital format, leaving only Sony BMG to fight the losing battle.

Most Influential: Google

No company has shaken things up or put fear into the hearts of the established industry players than Google. Viacom slapped the company with a billion-dollar lawsuit in March for fear of losses to Google-owned YouTube. Microsoft ironically cried antitrust when Google bought online ad company DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. And Google’s presence in the federal 700 MHz spectrum auction pushed behemoths like AT&T and Verizon to reevaluate their strategies and open up their networks. As Google stock continues to scrape the ceiling, every parallel industry is scared of Google, and knows that Google is leading the dance.

Biggest Hypocrites: Viacom, Microsoft, and Maybe Google

Though Viacom is claiming a billion dollars in losses due to YouTube, the company acts as though there is no money to be made online when negotiating with striking writers looking for a piece of the Internet pie.

It’s hard not to laugh when Microsoft complains to the government that another company will have an unfair advantage in the marketplace. It’s even harder to keep that laughter in when very soon after Microsoft complains about Google’s purchase of DoubleClick and lack of competition in the online ad space, Microsoft turns around and buys aQuantive for $6 billion, twice what Google will pay for DoubleClick.  Microsoft’s complaint appears to be more strategic than legitimate.

Google rocked the webmaster world by dropping webpages with paid links from its index. There has been a debate about whether or not that is justified, especially in regard to online directories. Many feel Google is not only dictating to webmasters what they can and cannot do with their websites, but also is being hypocritical considering Google’s entire business model is based on selling links.

Least Graceful Exits: Blognation and Terry Semel

What many thought was a concept to rival Reuters or the Associated Press – a worldwide network of tech bloggers called Blognation – became one scandalized mess. Blognation Founder and CEO Sam Sethi admitted to lying to bloggers about funding and impending payment, but also accused TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington of sabotaging Blognation’s efforts with investors. As Blognation spiraled toward non-existence, Arrington shot back by implying Sethi’s dishonesty contributed to the sudden death of a Blognation editor.

Dissatisfied with the company’s growth, Yahoo shareholders booted CEO Terry Semel at the beginning of the year and put Jerry Yang and Susan Decker at the helm. Either new policies are slow to take hold or that was a bad decision, as the company continues to lose market share to Google.
 

Biggest Scandals: Facebook Beacon, Yahoo and China, Comcast and p2p

Though some would argue Facebook had the best year ever – crazy valuations, Microsoft investment, substantial growth as a result of an open platform, and constant media attention – it wasn’t without its share of major problems. In addition to the yonker CEO Mark Zuckerberg having to face old classmates over accusations of stealing their idea, he was also forced to apologize for and revamp Facebook’s marketing service, Beacon, which broadcasted what Facebook users were buying at partner sites. Privacy advocates, led by MoveOn.org, went ballistic.

Yahoo found itself in a mess when it was revealed that an executive had not been truthful when a Congressional committee grilled him about Yahoo’s knowledge of Chinese authority’s reason for requesting information about a Yahoo Mail user. Yahoo assistance to the Chinese government resulted in the jailing of two journalistic dissidents.

Comcast raised Network Neutrality alarms and, in effect, provided a proof of concept, when the company was discovered to be interfering with peer-to-peer traffic in order to prioritize traffic. The incident provided nice fodder for Net Neutrality advocates.

Best Snooping Device: WikiScanner

A 24-year-old hacker developed a way to peek in on whom was editing Wikipedia articles based on IP address tracking. The results were stunning, with questionable edits coming from government agencies, major corporations, and media entities all looking to control their messages.

Most Abused: the DMCA

Don’t like what someone’s saying about you online? Lawyer up and send out a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice in order to bully their comments offline. This practice become more and more common in 2007, and at the pinnacle of abuse was one lawyer copyrighting the notice itself in order to sue when a blogger posted it on his blog.

Best Marketing Move: Radiohead

Popular rock group Radiohead dropped a bomb of an experiment online this year. Instead of letting record labels dictate the distribution of their music, Radiohead made their entire album "In Rainbows" available online free of charge for a limited time, and accepted donations from fans based on what they thought the album was worth. In addition, the band sold box sets, concert tickets, and t-shirts, proving that giving away their music could generate interest and sales.

Biggest Social Media Breakthrough: YouTube/CNN Debates

Another step toward a more populist democracy, YouTube broke new ground for Web 2.0 as the public was given unprecedented access to Presidential candidates. Both Democrat and Republican candidates were subjected to questions from everyday people, rather than just the media elite.

Best Online Mystery: Fake Steve Jobs

LonelyGirl is so 2006. This year, the favorite mystery to be solved was the unmasking of Fake Steve Jobs. They tried to trick him and to track him. They accused the wrong people. Finally, the New York Times discovered Fake Steve Jobs was actually Forbes editor Daniel Lyons.

Startup Having the Best Year Ever: Twitter

Expanding from micro-blogging curiosity, Twitter has become a social media must, being used in times of emergency like earthquakes and collapsed bridges, and for starting up charitable causes like the Frozen Pea Fund. Expect Twitter to be acquired in 2008. 

The news comes courtesy of the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom), the equivalent of the US’s Federal Communications Commissions (FCC), in its annual International Communications Market report. It compares the UK with 11 other countries: France, Germany, Italy, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Japan, Canada and the United States.

The report states that a family of four signing up for bundled services that include a landline phone, basic pay cable, and internet service will pay about 25 pounds ($50) per month, compared to $54 in France, $80 in Germany, and $140 in the US. 

These numbers are the latest to show that the US pays vastly more for vastly less in the digital age than other countries. In September, a Hong Kong telecommunications company began offering 1 Gbps fiber connections for $215 per month, compared with Verizon’s maximum 30 Mbps for $180 per month.

UK adults are also more avid social networkers than their European neighbors, with 40 percent logging in an average of 5.3 hours per month at social networking sites. This may also be the reason advertisers spend more money per person on internet advertising ($66) than any other country. In Britain, advertisers spend twice as much as France, Germany, and Italy combined.  

Ofcom’s full report can be viewed at the agency’s website.

Here is most of the text from the letter:

Over the past several months there have been incidents that have raised serious concern about the phone and cable companies’ power to discriminate against content. Just recently, Verizon Wireless arbitrarily chose to block a series of text messages on the grounds that the subject matter was too controversial.

While the carrier, to its credit, reversed this decision, this illustrates its power as a content gatekeeper. Then came the news that AT&T reserves the right in its Terms of Service to discontinue service of customers that criticize the company. And just last week, we saw reports of Comcast interfering with the popular file-sharing service BitTorrent.

All of these developments, Mr. Chairman, suggest that the Committee needs to consider the issue of content discrimination and investigate these incidents further if they were based on legitimate business and network management policies or part of practices that would be deemed unfair and anti-competitive.

The phone and cable companies have previously stated that they would never use their market power to operate as content gatekeepers and have called efforts to put rules in place to protect consumers "a solution in search of a problem."

These recent events suggest that response is well short of being sufficient and this Congress should consider adopting targeted regulations to protect consumers and ensure an open and vibrant communications platform.

We request that the full Committee hold a hearing to discuss discrimination against content and applications by phone and cable companies, and whether current regulatory protections are enough.

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission required a commitment from AT&T to Net Neutrality principals as a condition for regulatory approval of its merger with BellSouth. The condition has been proven to have no enforcement capability, as noted immediately by FCC chairman Kevin Martin, who opposed the conditions.

The Department of Justice also recently denied the need for Network Neutrality by reiterating telecom talking points. Skeptics feel the DOJ has a vested interest not only in scratching the backs of telecommunications providers who turn over phone records, but also in their ability to differentiate data packets. Net Neutrality legislation could, conceivably, prevent telecom’s rights to do so.  

Google Says It’s Time To Turn Japanese

"We hope policymakers take a careful look at exactly what is now happening overseas, why, and then draw the right conclusions about the steps necessary to bring the benefits of real broadband competition and innovation to all Americans," he concludes at the Google Public Policy Blog, referring to a report appearing in the Washington Post.

The WaPo article detailed that Japanese broadband was up to 30 times faster than the broadband in the United States.

30 times. Now, I’m not going to make a value judgment on this, but, in the America you grew up in, can you remember anything we could stand being second place in?

Okay, hockey and soccer. We didn’t care.

But a decade ago, Japan was struggling to keep up with the US in terms of Internet speed, and now they can watch broadcast quality television over it?

It’s interesting this article came from the Washington Post, too. A year ago, the paper wasn’t so hot on the idea of Net Neutrality. I called them on it, but I don’t think anyone noticed.

Whitt also notes SaveTheInternet.com’s explanation of why Japanese broadband speeds exploded so rapidly:

Less than a decade ago, DSL service in Japan was slower and pricier than in the United States. So the Japanese government mandated open access policies that forced the telephone monopoly to share its wires at wholesale rates with new competitors. The result: a broadband explosion.

Not only did DSL get faster and cheaper in Japan, but the new competition actually forced the creaky old phone monopoly to innovate.

That’s interesting, because the telco and cable company arguments have been exactly the opposite. They argue that any government involvement would stifle innovation and investment, even though a decade of non-involvement and $200 billion of tax-payer handouts have resulted in a duopoly that’s given us, well, about 15th place.

But my favorite part of the WaPo article was this section:

 [Japanese broadband] allows pathologists — using high-definition video and remote-controlled microscopes — to examine tissue samples from patients living in areas without access to major hospitals. Those patients need only find a clinic with the right microscope and an NTT fiber connection.

"Before, we did not have the richness of image detail," Matsuya said, noting that Japan has a severe shortage of pathologists. "With this equipment, I think it is possible to make a definitive remote diagnosis of cancer."

That’s funny to me because I seem to remember representatives of Verizon talking about the "cock-and-bull" and "Chicken Little stories" going around about Net Neutrality and how such government interference would stall or derail access to valuable Internet-based medical services.

It’s been a year and a half since this debate really started to get going, and I’ve seen no argument from the phone and cable side of it that’s held up to scrutiny.

In fact, if you’ve ever wondered what happened to the minds behind Reaganomics (because they sure as hell ain’t talking to W. these days), they’ve transferred their posts to the board of the PFF, an organization focused on deregulation of the nation’s vital industries, lowering corporate taxes, and promoting competition in a free market economy.

The list of PFF supporters is a veritable who’s-who of telecommunications, media, technology, and Internet companies. In short, when AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Comcast are in the room, it might be a little uncomfortable to bring up hot button issues like Net Neutrality and spectrum auctions.

But Google CEO Eric Schmidt did, while also half-promising to bid on a swath of 700 MHz wireless spectrum. You can watch the 55-minute video at the Google Public Policy Blog, or you can take Global Communications and Public Affairs manager Adam Kovacevich’s word for it, who writes:

In the policy arena, Eric offered three specific calls to action. First, he said we need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes online – and give teeth to the issue by pressing governments to classify censorship as a trade barrier. Second, we need to continue working toward universal broadband access, by government collaborating with industry and making sure that networks remain content neutral.

The Yahoo rep must have thought his collar a little tight when Schmidt mentioned the censorship thing…the irony of Google bringing it up notwithstanding.